AzTrials
AzTrials

Low Back PainPhase 3NCT00662558

A Six Week Study Of The Pain Relieving Effects Of Celecoxib 200 Mg Twice Daily Compared To Tramadol 50 Mg Four Times Daily In Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

A Phase 3 study testing celecoxib and tramadol HCL in people with Low Back Pain, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 60 sites in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

To compare the analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and tramadol in subjects with Chronic Low Back Pain measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain) at Week 6 Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Low Back Pain
What is being tested?
celecoxib and tramadol HCL
Type of treatment
Pill or oral medicine
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
802 participants
Where
60 sitesUnited States
Study dates
Jan 2008to Sep 2008
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • The subject presents with duration of chronic low back pain of > 3 months requiring regular use of analgesics (> 4 days/week), except for acetaminophen which cannot have been the sole analgesic used

Who cannot join

  • The subject has chronic low back pain, which is neurologic in etiology (i.e., radiculopathy, neuropathy, myelopathy)

Trial locations and contacts

60 sites in 1 country.

60 sites in 1 country

United States60 sites
  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Anaheim, California, 92801

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Austin, Texas, 78705

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Baltimore, Maryland, 21218

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70809

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Beaumont, Texas, 77701

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Beaumont, Texas, 77706

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35126

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35235

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35242

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Boulder, Colorado, 80304

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, 15017

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Bristol, Tennessee, 37620

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Collierville, Tennessee, 38017

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Colorado Springs, Colorado, 80904

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Columbia, Maryland, 21045

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Columbia, South Carolina, 29204

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Cos Cob, Connecticut, 06807

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Dallas, Texas, 75230

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Dallas, Texas, 75240

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Denver, Colorado, 80220

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Grapevine, Texas, 76051

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Houston, Texas, 77074

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Jackson, Mississippi, 39202

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Jacksonville, Florida, 32216

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Jacksonville, Florida, 32257

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Johnson City, Tennessee, 37601

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kingsport, Tennessee, 37660

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Lake Jackson, Texas, 77566

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Long Beach, California, 90806

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    New Tazewell, Tennessee, 37825

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    New Windsor, New York, 12553

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    New York, New York, 10022-1009

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    North Charleston, South Carolina, 29406

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Oceanside, California, 92056

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Omaha, Nebraska, 68134

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Phoenix, Arizona, 85023

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Pinellas Park, Florida, 33781

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Portland, Oregon, 97219

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Richmond, Virginia, 23294

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Rochester, New York, 14618

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Rockville, Maryland, 20852

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sacramento, California, 95823

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sacramento, California, 95825

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55108

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Salt Lake City, Utah, 84107

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    San Angelo, Texas, 76904

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    San Antonio, Texas, 78217

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    San Antonio, Texas, 78229

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Springfield, Missouri, 65807

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    St Louis, Missouri, 63141

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Weber City, Virginia, 24290

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    West Palm Beach, Florida, 33409

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Wheaton, Maryland, 20902

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Wichita, Kansas, 67206

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Wichita, Kansas, 67214

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Wildomar, California, 92595

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Williamsville, New York, 14221

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Woodstock, Georgia, 30189

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Six Week Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter Comparison Study Of The Analgesic Effectiveness Of Celecoxib 200 Mg BID Compared To Tramadol Hydrochloride 50 Mg QID In Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain

To compare the analgesic effectiveness of celecoxib and tramadol in subjects with Chronic Low Back Pain measured by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-Pain) at Week 6

Conditions
Low Back Pain
Being tested
celecoxib, tramadol HCL
Keywords
Chronic low back pain
Medical subject headings
Low Back Pain

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • celecoxibDrug

    200 mg capsules BID for 6 weeks

  • tramadol HCLDrug

    50 mg capsules QID for 6 weeks

Study groups in NCT00662558
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
celecoxibExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: celecoxib
tramadolActive comparatorNot described
Receives: Drug: tramadol HCL

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Treatment Responders Based on the Numerical Rating Scale-Pain (NRS-Pain)

    A subject who met the following criteria was considered as a successful responder at Week 6: completed 6 weeks of treatment with study medication and had a 30% improvement from Baseline to Week 6/ET on the NRS-Pain. NRS-Pain scale assessed the severity of a subject's lower back pain on a scale of 0 (No pain) and 10 (Worst possible pain).

    Measured: Week 6 or Early Termination (ET)

Secondary outcomes (13)
  1. Change From Baseline in Severity of Chronic Low Back Pain as Measured by NRS-Pain

    NRS-Pain scale assessed the severity of a subject's lower back pain on a scale of 0 (No pain) and 10 (Worst possible pain). NRS-Pain scale: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  2. Change From Baseline in Severity of Low Back Pain as Measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

    VAS was a 100 millimeter (mm) scale that subjects used to assess the severity of their lower back pain. Based on the following question, "During the past day, how much back pain did you have?", the subject was instructed to place a vertical line on the VAS to indicate the magnitude of his/her lower back pain. 0 mm = no pain and 100 mm = worst possible pain. VAS: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  3. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity

    Number of subjects with a graded level of disease activity using the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity 5-point scale (1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, and 5=very poor). Subjects were classified as "Improved" if their assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 1 (Very Good). Subjects were classified as "Worsened" if their assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 5 (Very Poor). Subjects were classified as "No Change" otherwise.

    Measured: Week 6/ET

  4. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity

    Number of subjects with a physician's grading of disease activity using the Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity 5-point scale ((1=very good, 2=good, 3=fair, 4=poor, and 5=very poor). Subjects were classified as "Improved" if their assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 1 (Very Good). Subjects were classified as "Worsened" if their assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if their assessment changed to Grade 5 (Very Poor). Subjects were classified as "No Change" otherwise.

    Measured: Week 6/ET

  5. Change From Baseline in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score

    Each subject assessed his/her own disability due to low back pain using the RMDQ worksheet, which consisted of 24 statements of disability. The RMDQ total score was calculated as the total number of statements that were checked; the RMDQ total scores could have ranged from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability. RMDQ: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  6. Change From Baseline in Modified Brief Pain Inventory (m-BPI-sf)

    m-BPI-sf scale assessed pain severity (0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain), and pain interference of functional activities (0 = does not interfere to 10 = completely interferes) during the 24 hour follow-up period. Subjects indicated: how much pain now; worst pain; average level of pain; how much pain interfered with general activity, mood, walking ability, relations with other people, sleep, normal work (including housework), and enjoyment of life. m-BPI-sf: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  7. Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale

    MOS sleep scale included the following attributes: sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken shortness of breath or headache, quantity of sleep, sleep adequacy, somnolence, Sleep Problem Index I, and Sleep Problem Index II. Score ranged from 0-100, with a higher score indicating more of the scale attribute (e.g., more sleep disturbance, etc.). A negative change indicated subject improvement. MOS sleep scale: Change = mean score at Week 6/ET minus mean score at Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  8. Number of Subjects With Change From Baseline in MOS Optimal Sleep Scale Scores

    The Optimal Scale is scaled from 0 or 1 with 1 indicating 7 or 8 hours of sleep per night and 0 otherwise. Number of subjects with change of improvement (0 to 1), no change (1 to 1 or 0 to 0), or worsening (1 to 0) from baseline as indicated by the MOS Optimal sleep scale.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  9. Change From Baseline in Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ)

    The WLQ included the following: Time Scale, Physical Scale, Output Scale, Mental-Interpersonal Scale, and Index Scale. The scales ranged from 0 (Limited none of the time) to 100 (Limited all of the time). A negative change indicated subject improvement.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6/ET

  10. Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication

    Number of subjects with an overall response to study medication of poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent.

    Measured: Weeks 1, 3, and 6/ET

  11. Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Pain Relief Scale)

    Number of subjects at varying levels of pain relief (1 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied).

    Measured: Week 6/ET

  12. Patient's Satisfaction Questionnaire (With Walking and Bending Ability Scale)

    Number of subjects at varying levels of pain relief (1 = very dissatisfied to 10 = very satisfied).

    Measured: Week 6/ET

  13. Chronic Low Back Pain Responders Based on VAS, Patient's Global, and RMDQ

    Subjects were successful responders if they had: > = 30% improvement from baseline to final visit in VAS assessment (as identified by 100 millimeter scale); > = 30% improvement from baseline to final visit in Patient's Global assessment (classified as improved if assessment reduced at least 2 grades from baseline or if assessment changed to Grade 1, worsened if assessment increased at least 2 grades from baseline or if assessment changed to Grade 5, or no change; and < 20% worsening from baseline to final visit in RMDQ assessment (lower scores indicated greater disability).

    Measured: Week 6/ET

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Apr 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2008
  3. Primary completionSep 2008
  4. Study completionSep 2008

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
802 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00662558
Sponsor's protocol ID
A3191338
Status last verified
Jan 2021
First submitted
6 Dec 2007
Last updated
21 Feb 2021
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing celecoxib and tramadol HCL in people with Low Back Pain, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 60 sites in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Feb 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 60 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 Nov 2009). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Treatment Responders Based on the Numerical Rating Scale-Pain (NRS-Pain) (time frame: Week 6 or Early Termination (ET)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Feb 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in